Notable Houston Employment Attorney Opinions

Haas v. Advo Systems, Inc., 168 F.2d. 393 (5th Cir. 1999). Reversal of a summary judgment issued in favor of the employer. The Court held that if a "stray remark" concerning an applicant's age was relied upon by the ultimate decision-maker it is relevant to the question as to whether the company committed age discrimination.

Olander v. Compass Bank, 172 F.Supp.2d 846 (S.D. Texas, 2001). Invalidation of a non-competition agreement) at the trial court level.

Beaubeauf v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 147 F.Supp.2d. 604 (S.D. Texas, 2001). Overruling of a motion for summary judgment filed against an employee in a pregnancy discrimination case.

Waldmiller v. Continental Express, Inc., 74 S.W.3d. 116 (Tex. Civ. App. - Texarkana, 2002).
Reversal of a summary judgment issued in favor of the employer in an age discrimination case.

Bloch v. Dowell Schlumberger, Inc., 925 S.W.2d 301 (Tex.App.-- Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ).The Houston Court of Appeals held that there is no jurisdictional prerequisite which requires a claimant to first bring a claim for unemployment benefits before the Texas Workforce Commission prior to filing a suit alleging the failure of an employer to pay wages.

Carney v. Sabine Contracting Corp., 914 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.App.-- Amarillo, 1996, no writ).
The Amarillo Court of Appeals held in this workers compensation retaliation case that the question as to whether an individual is actually an employee of a company presents an issue of fact, which precludes summary judgment.

City of Houston v. Vitek, 849 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th. Dist.] 1993, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The Houston Court of Appeals held that a municipal employee has a property interest in wages earned when he works in a position in an "out of classification" status.

Fuller v. Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp., 942 F.Supp. 307 (E.D. Tex. 1996).
The federal district court in Beaumont remanded this workers compensation retaliation case to state court holding that the resolution of the discharge claim did not call for an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, which governed the plaintiff's employment.